Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I can't answer for anyone else, but in my case it's because it's abundantly clear to me that flabio doesn't have the slightest clue what the answers are.

From the video he has posted it's clear he hasn't even grasped what the ideomotor effect is yet, and why a demonstration of it is not a demonstration that dowsing is capable of detecting underground water/pipes/cables whose position the dowser doesn't already know - which is what he would need to demonstrate to win the MDC.

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

I will not just take your word that there are actual gas lines where you say they are. You may be right, you may be wrong. Without verification of the gas line being there,﻿ this video does not prove very much.

Have you thought about doing a self-test where the results can be verified, e.g. the one I proposed earlier?

I can't answer for anyone else, but in my case it's because it's abundantly clear to me that flabio doesn't have the slightest clue what the answers are.

I thought posting the questions would be a good idea even if he had no idea about the answers.
In part, the goal of the questions was to find out if flabio is a troll. If he were, he'd just ignore the questions and go on with some random gibberish. If he's not, he'd do a very good effort to answer the questions.

If he did honestly try to answer the questions, that would (deservedly) greatly reduce trolling accusations on him. Furthermore, the answers could be used to design a protocol or, in the case the answer is "no idea", to tell flabio to go on testing until he got answers.

Flabio's answer was "Nope, it's not the ideomotor effect at all", which counts quite well as ignoring the questions and going on with random gibberish. Now I'll add myself to the "obvious troll" club and happily go to sleep (it's 12:36 AM here).

Last edited by jojonete; 1st April 2012 at 03:38 PM.
Reason: join "my" with "self" so that it says "myself" instead of "my self". Easy, right?

Being deemed a troll by a bunch of trolls is really quite laughable to say the least. If I wanted to troll or engage in a flame war I'd do that on an appropriate troll board.

Anyways...

I've found someone who is willing to put me through the blindfold test, and should have YT vids up in the next couple of days. The fella who's agreed to test me also has no faith in my ability to dowse what so ever, not unlike everyone here. This should be good, do stay tuned...

Good for you. I hope it inspires you to actually apply for a one of the challenges and earn yourself a big cash prize. Otherwise this thread should probably be moved out of the challenges subforum and to the general skepticism subforum.

I've found someone who is willing to put me through the blindfold test, and should have YT vids up in the next couple of days. The fella who's agreed to test me also has no faith in my ability to dowse what so ever, not unlike everyone here. This should be good, do stay tuned...

Meantime here's a prediction ($1m prize if correct?!): somehow I think we're going to be disappointed.

__________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind.
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.

I've found someone who is willing to put me through the blindfold test

If you mean a double blinded test, then good. As has been pointed out until you have successfully located something whose position you did not already know, under circumstances where all sources of information other than dowsing have been carefully and methodically eliminated, you yourself cannot know for sure whether or not dowsing works.

It might be a good idea to post the test protocol you intend to use here first. There wouldn't be much point in you going to the time and trouble of doing a test if there are fundamental flaws in it, would there?

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

I've found someone who is willing to put me through the blindfold test, and should have YT vids up in the next couple of days. The fella who's agreed to test me also has no faith in my ability to dowse what so ever, not unlike everyone here. This should be good, do stay tuned...

As Pixel42 notes, a blindfold test is not the same as a double blind test. Could you clarify what you're actually going to be doing in your test?

I'm not sure a double-blind test is necessary, or even practicable. A simple blind test (but definitely not 'blindfold' test) should suffice.

It's essential that no-one who knows where whatever it is flabio is dowsing for is buried is present during the test, as they can inadvertantly give him clues with their body language. So the test must be double blinded: neither the testee nor the observers can know where the targets are.

A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

I was thinking a blindfold and a duct taped full face motorcycle helmet might be convincing. And like I've said before, I've only ever dowsed service lines before, so that's what I intend to stick with...

I was thinking a blindfold and a duct taped full face motorcycle helmet might be convincing.

You need to demonstrate that you can tell the difference between ground which has a service line running under it from ground which does not, when there are no visual clues as to which is which, significantly more often than would be expected by chance.

Usually this is done by someone setting up an area with several marked spots, some of which have had whatever it is the dowser thinks he can detect buried in them and some of which have not, and then leaving whilst the dowser dowses each spot and identifies which is which. As long as there is no visual clue which is which, the dowser does not need to be blindfolded whilst he does this. As most dowsers need to see how their dowsing rods are reacting to determine whether they are getting a positive response, it's usually impractical to blindfold them.

Once the dowser has marked which spots he thinks are which, the guy who set it up returns and tells him if he is right.

The odds of getting the right spot by chance can be calculated beforehand. For example if there are 10 spots only one of which has the dowsing target buried in it, the chances of finding the right spot by chance is 1:10. For the JREF preliminary test, applicants are typically required to beat chance odds of 1:1000.

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

I was thinking a blindfold and a duct taped full face motorcycle helmet might be convincing. And like I've said before, I've only ever dowsed service lines before, so that's what I intend to stick with...

A double-blind test would be convincing, you being blindfolded would not.

__________________The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin

I am looking forward to flabio's next You Tube video, in which he points sticks at yellow flags while wearing two blindfolds.

Yeah. Wearing two blindfolds while dowsing gives a whole new meaning to double-blind testing.

__________________The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin

It's essential that no-one who knows where whatever it is flabio is dowsing for is buried is present during the test, as they can inadvertantly give him clues with their body language. So the test must be double blinded: neither the testee nor the observers can know where the targets are.

I agree, but I don't consider that the test setters not being present is the essence of a double-blind test. A truly double-blind test would require that nobody knows where the burial site is/are, whether present at the testing or not. And that was my point - that's not practicable - hence a simple blind test, albeit with the test setters then vacating the test area.

__________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind.
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.

__________________"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi
"But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin
---